It's called El Nino. It is a weather pattern that repeats irregularly due to an upwelling of warm water in the Pacific, what you describe is not anomalous at all.

Two pounds a day per goose (that's almost a kilogram) - it adds up quickly.

The strange concept is that you would bring up gun control when the statistics don't back you up. Over the last decade, the percentage of officers killed on duty, by guns vs other causes, in Britain is slightly HIGHER than it was in the United States. The US is far more violent than Britain, but guns do not contribute to that nearly as much as you would have others believe.

Warhol was mostly marketing, like Kim Kardashian with a paint brush.

But you challenged us to read, so from Wikipedia:

"New York's Museum of Modern Art hosted a Symposium on pop art in December 1962 during which artists like Warhol were attacked for "capitulating" to consumerism. Critics were scandalized by Warhol's open embrace of market culture."

"In 1979, reviewers disliked his exhibits of portraits of 1970s personalities and celebrities, calling them superficial, facile and commercial, with no depth or indication of the significance of the subjects. They also criticized his 1980 exhibit of 10 portraits at the Jewish Museum in New York, entitled Jewish Geniuses, which Warhol-who was uninterested in Judaism and Jews-had described in his diary as "They're going to sell."

"The Philosophy of Andy Warhol (1975), 'Making money is art, and working is art and good business is the best art.' "

I believer it is the opinions of those critics and reviewers which have stood the test of time, not Warhol's artistic works.

A boy once said, "The emperor has no clothes!" We see you chose to remove any doubt, with your appeal to authority and putting knowledge and opinion on the same level. You overvalue opinion - your own, and that of professionals in an almost purely subjective realm.

Not a recent NASA study, a NASA funded study. NASA, notably, didn't put their stamp of approval on it - in all likelihood because the authors did not reach their conclusions through proper methodology. A "thought experiment" is not suitable for reaching conclusions, only for developing a hypothesis. In other words, it is a complete fabrication presented as having some scientific basis and misrepresented as being the conclusions of a respected governmental and scientific body.

Let's see, the Government wants to analyze something, let's say going to the moon. Do they talk to George Lucas or a rocket scientist?

Texans might drive 1500 miles to fill up, but they wouldn't drive one kilometer.

"It shouldn't be polio versus autism," is the false dichotomy. Hers. There is no nuance in such a position.

Sorry dropped a zero should be 3000 gallons.

70 barrels is closer to 300 gallons. The author of the story says thousands of gallons early in the story, but later says about 70 barrels.

More details than this? http://www.kosagi.com/w/index....

What do you want, his sister's phone number too?

“The motherboard, battery board, and display adapter board are designs from whole cloth,” Huang told us. “Every trace on those PCBs was placed by my hand.”

Let us hope he means the third definition rather than the second from http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/...

2. (figuratively, used attributively or preceded by various prepositions) The fictitious material from which complete fabrications, lies with no basis in truth, are made.

3. Something made completely new, with no history, and not based on anything else.

Yeah, I and NASA lied about the contents of the report, Johnson left all the good stuff out of his speech, that's a real credible claim. You at least need to keep track of all the players in the discussion.

My other response to your previous post thoroughly disproves your allegations of revisionism. Scientific American is quite clearly guilty of an attempt at revisionism and you swallowed it. You now seem to be decidedly weak in your citations and strong on personal attacks which are juvenile, and which would, to any dispassionate observer, appear to be more applicable to you than to me.

Here is a link http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... that includes that one journalist you mentioned earlier, and a whole lot of his friends. I challenge you to find three articles in periodicals with comparable circulation to the NYT, Wash Post, Chicago Tribune, or even Science News between 1965 and 1975 which suggest global warming as a result of human carbon dioxide emissions into in the atmosphere. Now you can no longer say it was an isolated or fringe view from your position of smug ignorance - any such statement will now be a calculated lie. These articles all precede the notion of "nuclear winter" which was coined in 1983. You are the one who is trying to convince others that nuclear winter and these articles were mixed up when that is clearly an impossibility. So, I stand by my assessment of your veracity. Your personal attacks about my motives are both amusing and offer a somewhat disturbing view of your psyche.